I was surprised, but I couldn't that this topic has been started (so I apologize if I missed it.)

I'm not one of those who think L21+ originated in the British Isles but I am especially intrigued by the frequency of R-L21* in England, putting Wales, Scotland and Ireland aside. What do we know about R-L21* in England? Are there east to west or north to south clines? Are there surname type affinities? Which historic or prehistoric peoples carried most of the R-L21* into England?

A controversial aspect of this topic is the amount of genetic impact on paternal lineages from the Anglo-Saxon and later (Viking & Norman and whatever) invasions. Below is some information I clipped from another forum. The % of native Briton Y DNA still present in England may be higher than expected. Could R-L21* types in England be indicative of ancient Briton heritage?

For the admixture analysis, you have to refer to the Supplementary Data. The figures for England are: (EDIT Input from North Germany/Denmark calculated by MCMC.)Morpeth 57.1%Penrith 54.4%York 70.6%Southwell 52.9%Uttoxter 49.6%Norfolk 72.5%Chippenham 70.8%Faversham 49.5%Midhurst 24.4%Dorchester 36.0%Cornwall 57.7%

The surprise here were the low values for Faversham, Midhurst and Dorchester. This is surprising because of the later dominance of the House of Wessex. According to Capelli's (and Weale's) definition of Anglo Saxons and Britons, there don't seem to be many Anglo Saxons in the Wessex kingdom. I like to point out that Chippenham, which is in the land of the Gewissae, the original name for the West Saxons, is actually very high. This would support a hypothesis that this group settled in large numbers in their original territory but as they extended their dominance over the area which was later to be called Wessex, they did so by incorporating British territories into their expanding kingdom.....

Quote from: Michael

Just to make sure, I understand it. 1 minus the above numbers would be the Britons then, right? So this is the % of Briton Y DNA by English city if Capelli is right.Morpeth 42.9%Penrith 45.6%York 29.4%Southwell 47.1%Uttoxter 50.4%Norfolk 27.5%Chippenham 29.2%Faversham 50.5%Midhurst 75.6%Dorchester 64.0%Cornwall 42.3%

I'm not sure R-L21* can always be assumed to be ancient British in England. I thought that at first, but given the amount of R-L21* turning up in Germany, it seems to me quite possible (and maybe even likely) that some of the R-L21* in England, particularly in the eastern counties where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest, could be Anglo-Saxon.

In the regions traditionally thought of as Celtic, or where it is known the Britons had their strongholds, then it seems more likely that R-L21* is British.

But I think we're going to need some much younger SNPs before we can really separate one European tribe or ethnic group from another.

I'm not sure R-L21* can always be assumed to be ancient British in England. I thought that at first, but given the amount of R-L21* turning up in Germany, it seems to me quite possible (and maybe even likely) that some of the R-L21* in England, particularly in the eastern counties where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest, could be Anglo-Saxon.

In the regions traditionally thought of as Celtic, or where it is known the Britons had their strongholds, then it seems more likely that R-L21* is British.

But I think we're going to need some much younger SNPs before we can really separate one European tribe or ethnic group from another.

I'm not sure R-L21* can always be assumed to be ancient British in England. I thought that at first, but given the amount of R-L21* turning up in Germany, it seems to me quite possible (and maybe even likely) that some of the R-L21* in England, particularly in the eastern counties where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest, could be Anglo-Saxon.....

Yes, that is definitely possible, since there is R-L21* in Germany. Even without more granular SNPs, if we had enough 67 haplotype results I would think that we could find different clusters that might detect a signal. Are our R-21 project participants mostly at 67 markers?

I'm not sure R-L21* can always be assumed to be ancient British in England. I thought that at first, but given the amount of R-L21* turning up in Germany, it seems to me quite possible (and maybe even likely) that some of the R-L21* in England, particularly in the eastern counties where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest, could be Anglo-Saxon.....

Yes, that is definitely possible, since there is R-L21* in Germany. Even without more granular SNPs, if we had enough 67 haplotype results I would think that we could find different clusters that might detect a signal. Are our R-21 project participants mostly at 67 markers?

Slightly over 2/3rds are at 67 markers, with several more in process. They're a good bunch.

I'm not sure R-L21* can always be assumed to be ancient British in England. I thought that at first, but given the amount of R-L21* turning up in Germany, it seems to me quite possible (and maybe even likely) that some of the R-L21* in England, particularly in the eastern counties where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest, could be Anglo-Saxon.

In the regions traditionally thought of as Celtic, or where it is known the Britons had their strongholds, then it seems more likely that R-L21* is British.

But I think we're going to need some much younger SNPs before we can really separate one European tribe or ethnic group from another.

I would like to add one caveat to what I wrote above. Thus far, with but a couple of noteworthy exceptions, the bulk of German R-L21* is found in the west central and southwestern parts of Germany, outside the old Anglo-Saxon homelands along the North Sea littoral. That could change, of course, and we do have one R-L21*, Wolken, in Ostfriesland.

Those areas of Germany where R-L21* is making a strong showing are considered by some scholars as the heartland of the Celts on the Continent.

Then again, I think it is fairly well known that many if not most German-Americans have their roots in western Germany, particularly in the old Palatinate (modern Rheinland-Pfalz), and that could be skewing things a bit.

So, anyway, I believe what I wrote in that post above, but I do think that in Britain R-L21* is probably mostly Celtic, especially where it is found in the traditionally Celtic regions.

I'm not sure R-L21* can always be assumed to be ancient British in England. I thought that at first, but given the amount of R-L21* turning up in Germany, it seems to me quite possible (and maybe even likely) that some of the R-L21* in England, particularly in the eastern counties where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest, could be Anglo-Saxon.

In the regions traditionally thought of as Celtic, or where it is known the Britons had their strongholds, then it seems more likely that R-L21* is British.

But I think we're going to need some much younger SNPs before we can really separate one European tribe or ethnic group from another.

I would like to add one caveat to what I wrote above. Thus far, with but a couple of noteworthy exceptions, the bulk of German R-L21* is found in the west central and southwestern parts of Germany, outside the old Anglo-Saxon homelands along the North Sea littoral. That could change, of course, and we do have one R-L21*, Wolken, in Ostfriesland.

Those areas of Germany where R-L21* is making a strong showing are considered by some scholars as the heartland of the Celts on the Continent.

Then again, I think it is fairly well known that many if not most German-Americans have their roots in western Germany, particularly in the old Palatinate (modern Rheinland-Pfalz), and that could be skewing things a bit.

So, anyway, I believe what I wrote in that post above, but I do think that in Britain R-L21* is probably mostly Celtic, especially where it is found in the traditionally Celtic regions.

The other thought that I've had that I think applies, is what I'd call a "Germanized Celt." Different ancestral Celts may have integrated with German tribes at different points in times. Some may be a bit offended with the term I use and others confused, but after thinking about it, even though my paternal lineage is clearly Irish, and apparently Welsh before that... in other words Celtic all the way... I am "Germanized." My "Celtic" family has spoken a Germanic language for centuries. We've also inter-married with Germans (and Slavs for that matter.) I don't see why the same kind of thing didn't have at different times in Europe. For example, when Anglo-Saxons invaded England, surely some Britons inter-married with and took up the Anglo-Saxon (more likely blended Anglo-Saxon/British) culture. Who is to say that some of those Anglo-Saxon lineages were not ancient Celtic speakers who integrated with Germanic tribes on the continent only a few centuries before?

Sure, I think that is in fact what happened, and it happened to a large extent in Germany itself. No doubt some British warriors took service with the Anglo-Saxons, just as there were Germanic warriors who served in Attila's following. The Anglo-Saxons were adept at getting rival British "kings" to fight each other and on the side of the invaders, too.

The other thought that I've had that I think applies, is what I'd call a "Germanized Celt." Different ancestral Celts may have integrated with German tribes at different points in times. Who is to say that some of those Anglo-Saxon lineages were not ancient Celtic speakers who integrated with Germanic tribes on the continent only a few centuries before?

I just want to show you a clear example of a Germanized Celtic tribe:Boii were inhabiting the area what is now Austria and Czeh Republic and parts of Bavaria. It is evident, that tribes who germanized them get the name "Boier" (as you know -er means in German a place of orgin: Frankfurter, Berliner etc.) now this later became: Boier -> Boyer -> Bayer. Bayerisch (Bavarian) is spoken in Bavaria and Austria, and many lived in Czech Republic before 1945. Even the medieval name Bohemia comes from the Celtic Boii tribe.However, nothing sure can be said about Anglo-Saxons, as neither of the 3 big tribes of Germanic Britain can surely be connected to certain tribes of the Continent. I will do some research on this issue in the near future and I would share the findings if you are interested.

Today I was doing some fiddling around in YSearch and discovered something of potential interest. There are two Danes, Jensen (YSearch 46R5B) and Hansen (YSearch RBJUY) who are fairly close haplotype neighbors of one of our R-L21 Plus Project members, Churchman (YSearch M6PHZ). He matches Jensen 32/37 and Hansen 31/37. Churchman's most distant y ancestor came from Cambridge, England, well within the old Danelaw.

Which seems likelier to you: that Churchman, Jensen and Hansen all descend from ancient Britons, or that all three descend from Danes?

Anyway, I emailed Jensen and Hansen to try to convince them to test for L21. I realize 37-marker matches at a gd of 5 and 6 are not ideal, but they aren't too far off either. I would like to know if either or both of them is/are L21+.

Today I was doing some fiddling around in YSearch and discovered something of potential interest. There are two Danes, Jensen (YSearch 46R5B) and Hansen (YSearch RBJUY) who are fairly close haplotype neighbors of one of our R-L21 Plus Project members, Churchman (YSearch M6PHZ). He matches Jensen 32/37 and Hansen 31/37. Churchman's most distant y ancestor came from Cambridge, England, well within the old Danelaw.

Which seems likelier to you: that Churchman, Jensen and Hansen all descend from ancient Britons, or that all three descend from Danes?....

We know Danes have come into England, but I think a third alternative is very likely to your question. Neither, that instead all three are descendants, via separate lineages, to an even more ancient group.. Bell Beaker or possibly Hallstatt folks.

Today I was doing some fiddling around in YSearch and discovered something of potential interest. There are two Danes, Jensen (YSearch 46R5B) and Hansen (YSearch RBJUY) who are fairly close haplotype neighbors of one of our R-L21 Plus Project members, Churchman (YSearch M6PHZ). He matches Jensen 32/37 and Hansen 31/37. Churchman's most distant y ancestor came from Cambridge, England, well within the old Danelaw.

Which seems likelier to you: that Churchman, Jensen and Hansen all descend from ancient Britons, or that all three descend from Danes?....

We know Danes have come into England, but I think a third alternative is very likely to your question. Neither, that instead all three are descendants, via separate lineages, to an even more ancient group.. Bell Beaker or possibly Hallstatt folks.

Found an interesting post on Rootweb about L21 clusters. I noticed a few days ago there are seven new cluster modals under L21 Cluster in ysearch. The author, JS Walden, today posted a "Fluxus phylogenic chart" of those clusters and a file to find where the actual IDs are. Also included are those close to M222 and Leinster/Lagin which he characterizes as CCGG.

Churchman is in the L21 Cluster S. Irish III, AKA GrpI3. My brother, who is L21*, is not there but my cluster modal is (!), it's GrpSTR43--I would agree with that but the significance of it still eludes me.

Today I was doing some fiddling around in YSearch and discovered something of potential interest. There are two Danes, Jensen (YSearch 46R5B) and Hansen (YSearch RBJUY) who are fairly close haplotype neighbors of one of our R-L21 Plus Project members, Churchman (YSearch M6PHZ). He matches Jensen 32/37 and Hansen 31/37. Churchman's most distant y ancestor came from Cambridge, England, well within the old Danelaw.

Which seems likelier to you: that Churchman, Jensen and Hansen all descend from ancient Britons, or that all three descend from Danes?....

We know Danes have come into England, but I think a third alternative is very likely to your question. Neither, that instead all three are descendants, via separate lineages, to an even more ancient group.. Bell Beaker or possibly Hallstatt folks.

That's where I would be putting my money as well, though I would replace Hallstatt with Corded Ware.

Found an interesting post on Rootweb about L21 clusters. I noticed a few days ago there are seven new cluster modals under L21 Cluster in ysearch. The author, JS Walden, today posted a "Fluxus phylogenic chart" of those clusters and a file to find where the actual IDs are. Also included are those close to M222 and Leinster/Lagin which he characterizes as CCGG.

Churchman is in the L21 Cluster S. Irish III, AKA GrpI3. My brother, who is L21*, is not there but my cluster modal is (!), it's GrpSTR43--I would agree with that but the significance of it still eludes me.

Like I've said before, I have my misgivings about some of these clusters. I don't doubt that they exist, but I think they might not be as geographically limited as some of their authors think.

Sometimes a cluster gets named because of the emphasis its author gives it and where the first few members are found. Geographical or tribal cluster names are appealing but they can be misleading, especially if you mean to imply by "S. Irish III" that Churchman, despite the fact that his most distant y ancestor came from Cambridge, England, and his two Danish haplotype neighbors are Irishmen.

What if I had discovered that cluster and Churchman and the two Danes were its first three members? I might have dubbed it "Danish Type I", and people would be arguing about viking genetic influence in Ireland.

Churchman is in the L21 Cluster S. Irish III, AKA GrpI3. My brother, who is L21*, is not there but my cluster modal is (!), it's GrpSTR43--I would agree with that but the significance of it still eludes me.

Wait a minute. Are we talking about the same Churchman, YSearch M6PHZ? At 37 markers he is 6 off a cluster placed into YSearch by Mr. Walden himself and called "L21 Cluster S Irish II@37" (YSearch K7BHW).

Maybe I'm dense, but what makes that cluster stand out from the crowd so that being within 6 of it at 37 markers is somehow significant?

Did anyone notice that Appel of Lithuania (YSearch RJKGE), who is U152+, is only 5 off it, closer than our Mr. Churchman? There are a couple of other guys who belong to L21- subclades who are also with a gd of 6 of the thing!

The "L21 Cluster S Irish II@37" is only four off the R1b1b2 Modal (C7BED), and not in what I would call really startling ways.

Not everyone is in these groups, you have to have a GD of six or fewer from one of them, so their use is limited to that extent. I noticed a while ago that several of the "Irish" labeled groups are not all that Irish. Many have matches in what was once the Northumbria region. I agree with you, they probably saw a few McCarthys and Sullivans and categorized it, without checking the matches of the matches. Cork was the most densely populated county in Ireland before the famine and until the start of the 20th century and they have many large septs with proprietary names.

Churchman's closest match is S21 Slow Markers at a three GD and he is a GD of four from R1b@37 and WAMH, as is the S. Irish modal close to the WAMH.

I'm thinking clusters have to have some really distinctive, off-modal markers to be of much use. And 6 off them at 37 markers is shaky unless the person shares all or almost all of the truly distinctive markers that set the cluster apart.

I don't see that "S. Irish II" as all that distinctive. Just my opinion.

I'm thinking clusters have to have some really distinctive, off-modal markers to be of much use. And 6 off them at 37 markers is shaky unless the person shares all or almost all of the truly distinctive markers that set the cluster apart.I don't see that "S. Irish II" as all that distinctive. Just my opinion.

At 67 markers, what genetic distances are appropriate to determining what is "distinctive?"

I'm thinking it is not the GD that is so important as it is finding a common value for a set of several unusual (off the WAMH modal) DYS values (alleles) at slow moving locations. Do you agree? If so, what are those slow moving DYS locations we all should be looking at.

I'm thinking clusters have to have some really distinctive, off-modal markers to be of much use. And 6 off them at 37 markers is shaky unless the person shares all or almost all of the truly distinctive markers that set the cluster apart.I don't see that "S. Irish II" as all that distinctive. Just my opinion.

At 67 markers, what genetic distances are appropriate to determining what is "distinctive?"

I'm thinking it is not the GD that is so important as it is finding a common value for a set of several unusual (off the WAMH modal) DYS values (alleles) at slow moving locations. Do you agree? If so, what are those slow moving DYS locations we all should be looking at.

I agree to an extent, but that S. Irish II we have been discussing just isn't all that distinctive, period.

I think it is difficult to find really distinctive clusters, and you have a lot of guys who really don't know what they are doing who are putting "clusters" into YSearch. I'm not saying I'm a cluster expert; I'm not, which is why you won't see a cluster in YSearch with me as the contact person.

When you have a cluster and you allow a gd of six to include people in it and that catches guys from at least three different subclades, well, there's something wrong somewhere.

I'm thinking clusters have to have some really distinctive, off-modal markers to be of much use. And 6 off them at 37 markers is shaky unless the person shares all or almost all of the truly distinctive markers that set the cluster apart.I don't see that "S. Irish II" as all that distinctive. Just my opinion.

At 67 markers, what genetic distances are appropriate to determining what is "distinctive?"I'm thinking it is not the GD that is so important as it is finding a common value for a set of several unusual (off the WAMH modal) DYS values (alleles) at slow moving locations. Do you agree? If so, what are those slow moving DYS locations we all should be looking at.

I agree to an extent, but that S. Irish II we have been discussing just isn't all that distinctive, period.I think it is difficult to find really distinctive clusters, and you have a lot of guys who really don't know what they are doing who are putting "clusters" into YSearch. I'm not saying I'm a cluster expert; I'm not, which is why you won't see a cluster in YSearch with me as the contact person.When you have a cluster and you allow a gd of six to include people in it and that catches guys from at least three different subclades, well, there's something wrong somewhere.

Are there any cluster experts out there? One thing I can say for sure is that there seems to be some "magic" in the 38-67 DYS panel. I wonder if it was intended (by the vendor) to be that way. Well anyway, nothing I can do about that, but I will use this as an opportunity to encourage R-P312 folks to upgrade to 67 markers. The more people at 67, the more we'll know.

Are there any cluster experts out there? One thing I can say for sure is that there seems to be some "magic" in the 38-67 DYS panel. I wonder if it was intended (by the vendor) to be that way. Well anyway, nothing I can do about that, but I will use this as an opportunity to encourage R-P312 folks to upgrade to 67 markers. The more people at 67, the more we'll know.

Ken Nordtvedt seems pretty reliable at finding legitimate clusters, and I would trust Vince Vizachero if he identified an apparent cluster. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

I'm thinking clusters have to have some really distinctive, off-modal markers to be of much use. And 6 off them at 37 markers is shaky unless the person shares all or almost all of the truly distinctive markers that set the cluster apart.I don't see that "S. Irish II" as all that distinctive. Just my opinion.

At 67 markers, what genetic distances are appropriate to determining what is "distinctive?"

I'm thinking it is not the GD that is so important as it is finding a common value for a set of several unusual (off the WAMH modal) DYS values (alleles) at slow moving locations. Do you agree? If so, what are those slow moving DYS locations we all should be looking at.

I agree to an extent, but that S. Irish II we have been discussing just isn't all that distinctive, period.

I think it is difficult to find really distinctive clusters, and you have a lot of guys who really don't know what they are doing who are putting "clusters" into YSearch. I'm not saying I'm a cluster expert; I'm not, which is why you won't see a cluster in YSearch with me as the contact person.

When you have a cluster and you allow a gd of six to include people in it and that catches guys from at least three different subclades, well, there's something wrong somewhere.

I have long been interested in Nordtvedt's R1b-Ub, which he describes as a variety rather than a cluster. I have some very unusual markers for an R1b, and many of these match those of this variety. I am currently trying to figure out if this variety really exists as a descendant population, as Nordtvedt proposed, or whether it is totally due to convergence. Using Cullen's haplogroup predictor, I have found people who are U106, P312* and L21 who are a reasonable match. My current suspicion is that R1b-Ub might well exist as a descendant population, but others match the profile only due to accidental convergence. So I think some false matches due to convergence do not necessarily negate the possibility of a genuine cluster.